Roy Wood wrote:
Well, I've lurked on the list for a while since I hung up the
QBranch
boots in the closet but recent posts deserve some comment I
suppose.
Welcome back (back from lurking, I mean).
I
will start with the floppy issue. Way back when I was doing lots of
shows I decided that you could not format DD disks under QPC2 on any
of
my PCs. In fact I brought a QL / Aurora and monitor to many shows
just
to format disks. Firstly it was far too slow and secondly it failed
too
often. I was not typing it in at the command line because that was
too
slow at a show. Formatting was haphazard and took ages. I mentioned
it
on several occasions and got the usual 'does not happen here'
response.
Understandably hard to pin down. I did, however, find that
formatting
the disks using Disk Mate 5 usually worked fine - on all of the
systems
- so I hazard the guess that it is not a problem with Microsoft but
something else. I have have not tried under Windows 7 on this sytem
but
then it is hardly surprising that the ability to format a 20+ year
old
disk has been removed from a new system. This is like complaining
that
your CD player won't play 78s.No one uses floppy disks any more.
Sounds like the same experience I had. Totally unpredictable results
on that particular USB floppy drive (well, might be predictable to
someone like Marcel who knows the underlying code).
Sounds like we'll have to keep a QL just to keep formatting DD disks
for those who still use the dear old black boxes.
Which brings me onto the 'future of the QL' debate. Nothing has a
future
if it does not move. All the while I was writing 'Byts of Wood' I
was up
against the fact that there was nothing to write about. Nothing new.
No
point in being a trader for a static community if all you are
advertising is the same stuff that everyone already owns. Then, when
you
come up with a great system to make things better, no one buys it
(QDT
of course). There may well be 500+ users on Rich's database but what
are
they doing with the QL? What has he sold them? The odd keyboard
membrane, disk expansion,? How many repeat sales? Data is only of
use if
it has a context.
Fair point - sounds like the Roy Wood we knew and loved for telling it
straight.
QDT and my Launchpad were programs written in response to requests.
When they came out, only a tiny percentage of QL users actually bought
them.
Actually, there has been a recent survey to update the last one
Quanta did. Hopefully we'll all know the results very soon. Then we'll
know hopefully how many use basic QLs, how many use emulators, how
many don't use PE, how many have GD2 systems and whatever. We might
even see a situation where to all intents and purposes no two users
have the same system (well, ok, I doubt that but you know what I mean)
In all the time I was a trader there were very few ground breakers
and
they gradually fell by the wayside through lack of support and
sales.
This has been the most active conversation on this list for ages and
a
while back there were people talking about how to print - a subject
that
has been round the track more times than a sprinter with Alzheimers.
When the QL community was thriving it was moving forward with ideas
flowing. These last years it has been inward looking and
characterised
by infighting and lack of inspiration. I have not seen QL Today
since I
stopped distributing it but I am still a member of Quanta and I see
nothing new there.
If you want it to continue then you have to stop complaining and
waffling on this list and write programs, have ideas and innovate.
No
point in magazines and user groups if there is nothing new to say or
do.
(BTW the Sussex group stopped meeting years back because there was
nothing new to do and the only reason it says that we no longer have
a
venue is that Quanta was too lazy to contact us and just printed the
same message every time.)
If you knew it was in Quanta and knew it was wrong, nothing to stop
you telling Quanta to correct it either???
If people know the information is wrong, why let it go on being
wrong???
Although I wasn't charged with that particular sub-groups issue, the
virtually zero response I got when trying to sort out the list of
international groups was pretty heartbreaking. I gave up in the end
and just printed what info I had.
Taking off my Quanta hat for a moment and speaking personally, it's
easy to criticise organisations like Quanta. Geoff Wicks has said
enough about the Quanta committee being dominated by NEMQLUG
(Manchester group) members, but has been realistic enough to realise
that had it not been for the likes of John and Sarah Gilpin the
organisation might have been in danger of folding already due to
apathy and lack of interest from anyone else.
Many in the committee, myself included, have to double or triple up on
duties. John has given so much time between the magazine, treasurer
and membership duties. Indeed, had the committee not twisted his arm
and co-opted him back to the committee for one more year while we try
to find a treasurer, Quanta would have been in difficulty now and face
the very real possibility of winding up the organisation.
It would be great to hear from people explaining why they DON'T want
to go on committee. Surely it can't all be down to lack of time? We
don't have to travel much to committee meetings, modern technology
means we can do most work by email or telephone or conferencing and
just meet up once or twice a year as necessary to sort out the major
issues.
This may all seem a bit harsh but, like a jolt to the heart in teh
case
case of cardiac arrest, sometimes you need a defibrilator to restore
a
pulse. The paddles are in your hands - don't wait for the flat line.
--
Roy Wood
Absolutely - at the moment, Quanta and QL Today have a "hard core" of
contributors. Neither has paid contributors. With the possible
exception of Rich and Jochen, nobody is making money from the QL, so
it relies on volunteer effort. The few volunteers who are active are
doing a good job (writers like George Gwilt, Norman Dunbar, Steve
Poole and so on) writing articles but you can't rely on that small
number of people.
For some time now I have been trying to write and email program and a
paint program for QL systems. Nowhere near working yet (well, the
email program does receive email but hasn't got an editor to write one
yet - the emailing is the easy part!). Time is the issue - I have so
many commitments I just can't get the time in long enough bursts to be
able to write. It's many weeks since I last had the chance to look at
the editor part of the email program, I doubt I'll ever finish it at
this rate. The graphics program is stalled by the lack of screen dump
software for GD2 screens, a long time bug-bear of mine.
I'll continue pouring out mediocre programs and supporting the QL, but
although I didn't always agree with Geoff's sometimes negative
viewpoints in QL Today, it's hard to see the QL having a lifetime of
more than 3 to 5 years the way it's going (in other words, I often
agree with him more than I think). OK, it'll always be handy to be
able to write quick s*basic programs for my own use while I still have
a working QL emulator (and the PC is the only computer in regular use
here at the moment - the QL and Aurora are only brought out for the
specific use fo testing programs or, sorry Rich, formatting DD disks
for the very occasional Quanta library request.
Even if readers have negative contributions to make (by that I mean
criticising the lack of innovation, stagnancy and so on) to magazines,
it's still worth stoking the flames every now and then and writing
something just to let people know there are QLers ourt there, not just
the same old names filling the mags all the time.
A simple example. John Sadler started this particular "QL future"
thread and having heard other contributions on this, I'd like to hear
from John again now on how he reacts to all this and what his views
are!
OK, that's my rant over! Keep prodding, Roy, the QL community could do
with a good kick up the rear end sometimes.
Dilwyn Jones
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
